Finally, the Left and Right Agree On Something.

On what you ask? There is surprising consensus on this: Hezbollah is the winner(unfortunately) and President Bush is a horrible fuck-up of a president.

Of course, people (like myself) of the Left persuasion have different reasons to explain the clusterfuck that was the Israel/Lebanon conflict, and to explain the clusterfuck that has been the George W. Bush Presidency.

They are angry at Bush for not supporting Israel enough and encouraging it to go for the long haul and completely invade Lebanon to get rid of the Hezbollah threat. They are angry that he 'gave in' and finally pushed for this current UN ceasefire that they view as failure for Israel. They think he is too "compassionate" (I was drinking a soda as I read that...needless to say I had to wipe the computer down). He does not have enough of the warrior temperament.

WTF?! A Warmonger is not enough of a warmonger? What do they want, Attila the Fucking Hun? Its his warmongering that is precisely why we are fucked in Iraq, and why we think he is a horrible president. And they think he's too nice!! Again, WTF!? Read what they have to say about Dear President.

Daily Pundit - in a post recommended by Instapundit: "Read the whole thing, especially if you work in the White House."

Bush's proud words of five years ago stand revealed as hollow and
meaningless. What happened?

What happened was one of the biggest failures of leadership in Presidential history. Bush supporters will claim that Bush was done in by a liberal media and the ferocious hatred of liberals and leftwingers, but that is one of the things true leadership is all about: Managing and overcoming opposition in order to achieve the necessary goals - in this case, the destruction of world Islamist terrorism and the regimes that support it.

Bush turned out to be singularly ill-equipped for this task, both by skill and by temperament. His public relations management was curiously hesitant and badly timed, and, of course, his inability to speak effectively in public was a gigantic handicap. His temperament, it eventually became clear, was hesitant, overly calculating, timid, and "compassionate."

Compassion has its place, but not in warfighting. The Bush we know would not have pulled the trigger on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He abdicated the hard decisions in favor of political maneuvering and meaningless gestures.

As for me? I've moved on. The first administration of the first century of the American Third Millennium will, in my estimation, be remembered as one of the biggest failures of that century. Bush's great failure was, not invading Iraq, but not weathering the adversity that followed through acts of real leadership, and then pressing on with the necessary military destruction of the other regimes he, himself, named as most dangerous five years ago.

I'm hoping we can get through the next two years without any major disasters, and then I'm looking to elect a real war leader to the White House - somebody with a warrior's temperament and a leader's skills. George Bush has neither. He is a dangerous failure, and America will be well rid of him.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, it is interesting that when we criticize the president "during a time of war" (gag) we are somehow helping the terrorist, undermining our president, and emboldening our enemies...so what do they make of what they are saying.

I doubt they would describe it the same way.